Delhi District Court
(Judgment) State vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal on 17 February, 2018
(Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal
PS Shalimar Bagh
FIR no. 542/15
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHAILENDER MALIK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)
NORTHWEST: ROHINI: DELHI
Registration/ID : 22/15, 51957/2016
No.
FIR No : 542/15
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 376/323 IPC
State Vs. : Ram Gopal @ Gopal
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Snehi
R/o House no. 227, Gali no. 3,
Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur,
Delhi.
Date of committal : 30.07.2015
Charge framed on : 22.08.2015
Arguments advanced on : 16.02.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 17.02.2018
Decision : Acquitted
Appearance:
Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Ravi Yadav counsel for the accused Ram Gopal @ Gopal
J U D G M E N T
1.Accused Ram Gopal @ Gopal is facing prosecution for offence u/s 376/323 IPC.
2. Prosecution story is that on 23.04.2015, after receipt of information about the commission of rape, SI Seema reached at BSA hospital, where doctor handed over the MLC of the Page no...... 1 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 prosecutrix M and after inquiry, she recorded the statement of the prosecutrix to the effect that on 12.04.2015, at about 2.00/2.30 am, when she had gone to the bathroom, accused, who was residing in the neighbouring room, came there and committed rape upon her. After the incident, she returned to her room and due to fear, she did not disclose about the incident to anyone. On 23.04.2015, on the asking of her husband, she told him about the incident and thereafter, her husband gave her beatings. She requested for legal action against the accused.
3. On such statement/complaint dated 23.04.2015 as well as MLC of the prosecutrix, present case was registered. On 24.04.2015 statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 CrPC was also got recorded. On 29.05.2015, accused surrendered himself in the court and he was arrested in the matter. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.
4. Considering the material available on record, vide order dated 22.08.2015 charge for the offence u/s 376 IPC against the accused Ram Gopal @ Gopal was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses: Page no...... 2 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 PWs Name of the Nature of Documents proved Witness the witness PW1 HC Rakesh Police He has proved the FIR Ex.PW1/A, Kumar witness endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW (duty 1/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian officer) Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C. PW2 Dr. Lokesh Medical He proved the MLC of prosecutrix Ex.
witness PW2/A.
PW3 Prosecutrix Public She proved complaint Ex. PW3/A
witness and her statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.
PW3/B.
PW4 W/Ct. Sandeep Police She accompanied the IO at the time
witness of medical examination of
prosecutrix, got the prosecutrix
medically examined and also took
the rukka to the PS and got the case
FIR registered.
PW5 W/Ct. Pooja Police She accompanied the IO at the time
witness for medical examination of
prosecutrix.
PW6 Dr. Mukesh Medical He proved his opinion regarding
Kumar witness potency of the accused Ex. PW6/A.
PW7 Ct. Karam Police He joined the investigation with IO at
Singh witness the time of arrest of accused and
proved the arrest memo Ex. PW7/A,
personal search memo Ex. PW7/B,
pointing out memo Ex. PW7/C and
disclosed statement of the accused
Ex. PW7/D.
PW8 Smt. Vijya Public She is landlady of the house no. 227,
Kumar witness Gali no. 3, Ambedkar Nagar, wherein
accused as well as prosecutrix were
residing on rent in their respective
room.
PW9 W/SI Sumedha Police She took over the investigation on
witness 30.04.2015 and arrested the accused
Page no...... 3 of 12
(Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal
PS Shalimar Bagh
FIR no. 542/15
PW10 Dr. Deepak Medical He also proved the MLC of
witness prosecutrix Ex. PW2/A.
PW11 SI Seema Police She is Investigating Officer of the
witness case and she recorded the statement
Ex. PW3/A of the prosecutrix, gbot
the present case registered, prepared site plan Ex. PW11/A, made efforts to search the accused, got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix vide application Ex. PW11/B and thereafter, collected copy thereof vide application Ex. PW11/C.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, whatever incriminating material has come on record put up to the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC wherein accused denied the evidence and has taken the plea of being innocent and falsely implicated. He further stated that he asked the husband of the prosecutrix to return Rs. 10,000/, which he had taken from him, but instead of making the payment, he got him falsely implicated by pressurizing his wife to make statement against him. Accused also examined DW1 Sh. Bajrang in support of his plea of false implication.
7. I have heard Ld Addl. PP for the State and Ld counsels for accused persons and has also gone through the record.
Page no...... 4 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164
8. Before I discuss the evidence as come on record, I deem appropriate to reproduce here the statement of the prosecutrix given by her before Ld MM u/s 164 CrPC.
" 12 April ko raat ko 2.30 baje, main bathroom karne uthi thi. Gopal ne achanak aakar mujhe pakad liya. Usne jabardasti mere saath balatkar kiya. Phir main aakar let gai. Mere gharwale ko mere upar shak ho gaya. Usne mujse es bare me pucha. Maine kuch nahi bataya. Meri es baat par mere pati se ladai ho gai. Akhir me, maine kal apne pati ko es bare me bataya. Tab humne kal police me report ki. Mere gharwale shuru se hi mujh par shak karte hai. Isliye maine shuru me is bare me ghar par nahi bataya tha.
Discussion of evidence
9. Let us now examine the evidence as come on record. Most material witness in this case is prosecutrix/PW3 M. PW3 inter alia testified that she is m arried for the last 20 years, her eldest child is of 18 years of age. Her husband is a gardner(maali). PW3 says that on 12.04.15 at about 02.30 AM, she got up for going to the washroom. After returning towards her room from washroom, accused Gopal caught hold her and stated to have dragged her inside the washroom. PW3 further says that accused committed rape upon her. Thereafter, she returned to her room quitely and Page no...... 5 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 went off to sleep. PW3 says that she did not tell about the incident to her husband or to anybody, because of fear. PW3 further says that her husband is suspicious person and had suspicion on her since that night. PW3 says that her husband had started harrasing her by touching her body to inquire as to whether she has established relationship with some one. PW3 says that accused keep on giving beating to her but she did not tell anything to her husband as she thought he will have more suspicion on her, if she will tell him about the incidence.
10. PW3 further testifies that one day her husband gave her severe beating on that issue but she did not tell him anything. Her husband has caused fracture on her hand. After 2/3 days of giving such severe beating by her husband, PW3 is stated to have told him everything about the incident. PW3 says that next day her husband had called police at 100 number and then she got recorded her statement to the police which is Ex. PW3/A. PW3 further says that her statement U/s 164 Cr. P.C was also recorded which is Ex. PW3/B.
11. In cross examination, PW3 has denied that her husband had taken loan from the accused, however, PW3 has admitted in cross examination that her father and other family members had come to Delhi after the alleged incidence. PW3 further admits that she told to her father that her husband was Page no...... 6 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 pressurizing her to file case against the accused. PW3 was also confronted with her previous statements given to the police as well as recorded statement U/s 164 Cr. P.C Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B wherein it was not recorded that the accused caught hold of her and dragged her inside the washroom.
12. Considering the evidence of prosecutrix as discussed above, first of all the unnatural conduct of the prosecutrix is reflected in her examination in chief itself when she testifies that on 12.04.2015, she got up at about 02.30 AM in the night for going to the washroom and when she was coming back to her room, accused allegedly caught hold of her and dragged her inside washroom where accused committed rape upon her. PW3 thereafter says that she quietly came to her room and did not tell about the incidence to anybody. It is most unnatural that if someone has forceably caught hold of prosecutrix and dragged her, she still did not raise any alarm or voice to ask for the help, if such incidence has taken place in the manner as deposed by PW3. Most unnatural part of her evidence is that after the incidence of rape in the midnight, she did not raise any voice or alarm and quietly went to her room and slept. PW3 stated to have not disclosed about the incidence to her husband apparently on the ground that her husband may start having suspicion on her. If a lady has been Page no...... 7 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 subjected to sexual assault, most natural and obvious reaction would be to ask for the help and to inform about the incidence. If any such unfortunate incidence would have happened, there could not have been any reason to feel fear from the husband inform about the incidence, therefore, the explanation as put forth by the PW3 regarding not disclosing about the incidence to her husband appears to be most improbable and unacceptable.
13. If we further examine evidence of PW3 she says that one day she was given severe beating by her husband as he started having suspicion since that night about her. PW3 says that she was given severe beating to the extent that she had a fracture in her hand by that beating given by her husband. It is at that stage also prosecutrix stated to have not disclosed about the incidence to her husband. Again such conduct of the prosecutrix does not conform to a natural and obvious reaction. If an incidence of rape has happened with her, it is unbelievable that she would still not like to tell about the incidence to her husband despite receiving beatings from her husband. PW3 further says that 23 days after such severe beating given by her husband, she stated to have disclosed about the incidence to her husband and then next day police was called and she got recorded her statement Ex. PW3/A. There is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt Page no...... 8 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 generally delay in FIR has no much bearing in a rape case. But at the same time, it is equally important to explain the delay in registration of FIR. Alleged incidence in this case has taken place on 12.04.15 and FIR has been registered on 23.04.15, prosecutrix has simply stated in her evidence that she was not disclosing about the incidence to her husband. This explanation in lodging the complaint to the police does not appear to be cogent enough to be believed.
14. As a general legal proposition, evidence of victim of sexual assault need no corroboration and her evidence is to be appreciated with realistic approach. However, at the same time it is also to be noted that evidence of prosecutrix cannot be considered to be gospel truth in every possible situation. Her evidence is to be examined to check whether her evidence is worthy of any credence or not. In this case, PW3 in cross examination has admitted that her husband has been forcing her to get the case registered against the accused. This probablize the defence of the accused wherein he has stated that he had given loan to the husband of the prosecutrix which he failed to return and falsely implicated the accused in the present case. This fact coupled with improbable conduct of the prosecutrix clearly create doubt on the credence to be given to the testimony of PW3.
Page no...... 9 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15
15. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi, 191 (2012) Delhi Law Times 439 (SC), it was observed as "the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the Page no...... 10 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
16. In Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170, it was held as under:
Page no...... 11 of 12 (Judgment) State Vs Ram Gopal @ Gopal PS Shalimar Bagh FIR no. 542/15 "It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not find her evidence to be of such quality...."
17. Conclusion : Thus I find that testimony of PW3 is not of sterling quality to be relied upon in the facts of the present case. There being no other evidence on record regarding the incidence, therefore, I find that testimony of PW3 cannot be believed or acted upon to fasten the liability upon the accused. Accused to my mind is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, accused stands acquitted from the charge. Accused is directed to furnish a personal and surety bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ each under provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for period of six months. File be consigned to Record Room on compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court on 17.02.2018 (SHAILENDER MALIK) ASJ(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) NORTHWEST, ROHINI COURTS Page no...... 12 of 12